Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/637/09

MRS.RACHARLA SHYAMALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

MR.GAJULA VENKATESWARA SAI

29 Apr 2011

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/637/09
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Chittoor-I)
 
1. MRS.RACHARLA SHYAMALA
R/O GANDHINAGAR, SULTHANABAD VILL AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT.
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. M.SHREESHA Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ATHYDERABAD.

 

F.A. 637/2009 

 

 

Between:

 

Racharla Shyamala,

W/o. Late Racharla Thirupathi

Age: 23 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar

Sulthanabad, (V&M)

Karimnagar Dist.                                                                                               And

1) India

Rep. by its 

Pragathinagar, Peddapalli

Karimnagar Dist.

 

2) 

Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.,

Peddapally, Karimnagar Dist.                            

 

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Respondent:  

                                                                  

CORAM:

                       

                                                                           

 

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF

 

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

 

                                                          

 

1)       

 

2)                                Rs. 6,15,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of death till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, and costs. 

 

3)               

 

4)       

 

5)       

 

6)        R2     

         

7)          

8)      

 

9)               It is not in dispute that the policy was issued under Salary Saving Scheme (SSS) admitted by the very insurance company in the affidavit filed by its         

 

 

10)       

 

“In terms of the Scheme, significantly the employee for all transactions was required to contact his employer only. In view of our findings financial constraints, the employee may be held to have a legitimate expectation to the effect that his employer would at least comply with its solemn obligations. Such obligations having been undertaken to be performed by the employer at the behest of the Corporation as its agent having the implied authority there-for, the Corporation cannot be permitted to 

 

 

 

 

 

11)                    

 

12)         

 

 

                                                                            1)PRESIDENT 

 

 

2)      MEMBER 

                                                                              *pnr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“UP LOAD – O.K.”

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
[HONABLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. M.SHREESHA]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.